Originally posted by Flores
Good question. I don't have enough information on the god that created the universe to assign a sex to it. I don't call my creator father, mother, or son, like christians do. I don't call myself a child of god or a son of a bitch. God is the term that I use to describe my creator and I'm the creation and that's the extent of my knowledge.
As far as the christian god, it's clear that he is a man with a big penis, afterall, you call him father and he has millions of childrens. So the Christian god appears to be a male shovenist pig.
Originally posted by Quigly
God is not subject to natural laws of a natural world that he created. He is part of another dimension of which we have very little knowledge of.
Really for all we know, the laws of math are only subject to what we know in our kosmos and not neccesarily the universe as a whole. The universe has to many unknowns to make any such conclusion about math.
I'm glad you came around. We agree - a god wouldn't have a sex. That's stupid. I just happen to think that the whole god idea is obtuse - I'm not Christian - I don't call it anything, least of all father. Yes I agree the Christian god appears to be a male chauvinist pig. I don't see how that is mush different than the Islamic or Jewish representations? Please elaborate on one or the other or both (if you have time).Originally posted by Flores
Good question. I don't have enough information on the god that created the universe to assign a sex to it. I don't call my creator father, mother, or son, like christians do. I don't call myself a child of god or a son of a bitch. God is the term that I use to describe my creator and I'm the creation and that's the extent of my knowledge.
As far as the christian god, it's clear that he is a man with a big penis, afterall, you call him father and he has millions of childrens. So the Christian god appears to be a male shovenist pig. [/B]
Good Point!Originally posted by mrmufin
Then it must be quite possible that God is deceiving you? Perhaps that the concepts of Heaven and Hell are actually reversed...? When you start asserting that God must transcend natural law - or more specifically, God is unknowable - you are necessarily starting down a slippery slope.
A God who is deceitful would not rely so much on our ability to realize the truth. I would expect much more miraculous events and other forms of "manipulation" to keep us believing the lie? But that is really a little outrageous, since we believe in a Creator God, which would imply He is working against himself. And then Jesus was the one who showed us the truth: "that a house divided in itself cannot stand". Jesus was referring to the father of lies, Satan, as the one who delight in deception. And Jesus claimed his authority came directly from God. Therefore we know God is opposed so deception: He would not expose His own deception if He was trying to hide it.Originally posted by mrmufin
Then it must be quite possible that God is deceiving you? Perhaps that the concepts of Heaven and Hell are actually reversed...? When you start asserting that God must transcend natural law - or more specifically, God is unknowable - you are necessarily starting down a slippery slope.
Originally posted by Michael
I wonder why God doesn't let women have 4 men as husbands? Let me guess because there’s 4x’s the number of women in the world?
Come on Flores.
Originally posted by Michael
I wonder why God doesn't let women have 4 men as husbands? Let me guess because there’s 4x’s the number of women in the world?
Come on Flores.
Originally posted by Jenyar A God who is deceitful would not rely so much on our ability to realize the truth. I would expect much more miraculous events and other forms of "manipulation" to keep us believing the lie? But that is really a little outrageous, since we believe in a Creator God, which would imply He is working against himself.
And then Jesus was the one who showed us the truth: "that a house divided in itself cannot stand". Jesus was referring to the father of lies, Satan, as the one who delight in deception.
And Jesus claimed his authority came directly from God. Therefore we know God is opposed so deception: He would not expose His own deception if He was trying to hide it.
Furthermore, unknowable refers to our limited mental capacity. Many things we only "know" as mysteries. Some become clear, others not. We try to compensate for discrepancies by formulating theories that satisfy all the data.
Religion could be called "theory of God" (or Theology). But there is a difference between theology and the practice of faith. You would like the two to stand opposed (faith vs. knowledge), but they need not.
What we know could be sufficient to live with what we don't know. People 4000 years ago did not know about the science behind weather forecasting - but they could read the air, the wind, and the signs well enough to predict rain. They did not need to be able to explain how rain forms to appreciate it.
We can only know nature by nature and thinking about nature.
Different rules apply to spiritual things, and we know God by thinking about Him.
What is unknowable today might be knowable tomorrow and known in theory the day after. Nothing prevents us from knowing the sides of God that are within our reach.
To say that He is ultimately unknowable or should be scientifically discernable constitutes a tunnel-vision that might prevent you from seeing what you need to grasp even the basics.
Personally, I would divorce the second wife and marry the third. The solution in the Qur’an is not always a solution, for example,e: and if the second wife does the same? Marry a third. And if the third wife does the same – marry a fourth. And if the fourth wife does the same – marry a fifth. And if the fifth wife does the same – marry a sixth. And and and and and and . . . . .Originally posted by Flores
Now you tell me, what would you do in that instance? What would you do Michael, if I was your wife, I gave you two beautifull children that look just like you, then I died when they were young. You went and remarried and your new wife gave you three more kids and started treating your first kids as inferior and Cinderella like maids.
Markx – hello, yes I was given my fathers surname. However, it wouldn't matter to me if it were the other way around. As a matter of fact, as one can NEVER be sure of the father and is ALWAYS sure of the mother. Maybe it makes more sense to take the Mothers surname? As for the Universality of taking the father’s name - that is not so.Originally posted by Markx
My friend, Since you have asked, I should tell you the reason that I understand. How do you write your name? Michael *lastname*, which is your father's name? ( some exceptions goes with their mother's name) It is universaly same for all religions, nations, countries etc etc. Now if some one got Four Wives all the children can have one father, correct? and one mother. Right?
Women in Kham and Tibet can marry several brothers of the same family. Usually the reasons for this are economic (marrying the brother keeps the family property intact - and in Tibet there's not so much to go around). This is practiced today. My point being, anything is possible socially. If the number of women in the world began to decline until there were only 10% women. You can bet that society would restructure to accommodate this.Now, if you have one woman with Four Men, there is no telling who's child is who? Who would be his father? since all four men are sleeping with one woman. Do you see a point?
Originally posted by Michael
Personally, I would divorce the second wife and marry the third. The solution in the Qur’an is not always a solution, for example,e: and if the second wife does the same? Marry a third. And if the third wife does the same – marry a fourth. And if the fourth wife does the same – marry a fifth. And if the fifth wife does the same – marry a sixth. And and and and and and . . . . .
Originally posted by Michael
The reason I mentioned the marriage is because my Muslim friend here, when asked by me, why isn't it the other way around? Why not 4 men for each wife? He replied – because there are 4 times as many women in the world! Too funny Speaking of which. Do you think it would be OK for women to take more than one husband? Certainly some Tibetan peoples allow for this to occur – so it can and does easily work socially. Could it be that the 4 wives is in the Qur’an because it was custom pre-Mohammad for ME peoples to have the option to take 4 wives and as such made it's way into the Qu'ran?
Originally posted by Flores
If Jesus is actually god and god is one as the first commandment was so simply put, then how can we see him as a human while he is still acting as god, and if he is acting as a human, then who the hell is acting in his place in heaven and running the universe.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
This is exactly why you should study Bhagavad Gita, where you will understand actually who and what God is.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the belief that Jesus is God. Why? Because he is as good as God.
Contrary to that, Jesus himself said that he is not good and none is good save god. Of course that's the bible that I claim is corrupt, so excuse me for using it to make my point.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
If you recall from the Qur’an, Allah instructed all those present to bow down and worship Adam, such reverence is either for God or His representative. Jesus was such a person.
I recall, but the word worship was not used. All was asked to bow down in submission to god's order to create a new race that could be destined to reach such high levels or doomed to the lowest levels possible. The bow was not meant to transfer the authority from god to Adam, but as a symbol of submittion to god's order regardless of how rediculous the order is. Satan only saw the rediculous part, he questioned how can mud be better than fire and thus he defied god's order with his reluctance. Satan didn't defy Adam. Satan defied god.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Let’s say you have one lit candle (original) and two unlit ones. If you use the first candle to light the other two, has the fire become divided, or does the other two candles have the same potency as the original candle?
The example is not very good. May I modify it by saying, you have one original infinite light source that was used to light two candles. Since the original light source is infinite, it has not become divided or lessened by sharing some of it's qualities, yet the little candle have very little of the qualities of the infinite light. The original infinite light source can light a million candles, yet million of candles can be dark once their wax runs out.
Originally posted by Flores
I recall, but the word worship was not used. All was asked to bow down in submission to god's order to create a new race that could be destined to reach such high levels or doomed to the lowest levels possible.
The bow was not meant to transfer the authority from god to Adam, but as a symbol of submittion to god's order regardless of how rediculous the order is.
Satan only saw the rediculous part, he questioned how can mud be better than fire and thus he defied god's order with his reluctance. Satan didn't defy Adam. Satan defied god.
The example is not very good. May I modify it by saying, you have one original infinite light source that was used to light two candles. Since the original light source is infinite, it has not become divided or lessened by sharing some of it's qualities, yet the little candle have very little of the qualities of the infinite light. The original infinite light source can light a million candles, yet million of candles can be dark once their wax runs out. [/B]
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
"Bow down to submission" same thing. Allah instructed them to bow to Adam. He didn't say bow to Adam because i told you to.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Well, this is the whole point, there is no transferance of authority, everything is on the absolute platform. If you believe Allah is an Absolute Being, then that means His words and actions are non-different to His-Self. Adam was therefore as perfect as Allah.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Again you've missed the point. Ultimately He defied God, but he defied Adam, as Adam was put on the same level as God, by God. So again, there was no qualititive difference between Adam and God.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
But what happens to the little lights? As they are from an infinate source, they must also be infinate, otherwise the source is not infinate.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
an, a moon reflects the sun light, yet it has no source of light from within itself. The moon is so bright, yet it burn no fire. If you ask yourself why you'll discover that the light reflects off clear surfaces that lends itself to it. The stars on the other hand are burning their own fuel, oneday they'll be done, no light, no reflection. People are similar. Some of us are clear enough to refelct god's light, and others are opaque and dark, god's light doesn't enter them.
Originally posted by Flores
Actually, the only reason they bowed to Adam is because god asked them to.
Now, if god asked you to, of course you would? Would you bow to Satan if god asked you to?
If God wanted to empower Adam with his same power, he would have asked Adam to ask the others to bow to him,
.....and I doubt anybody would have bowed if the command didn't come directly from god.
Adam is by no means as perfect as god.
When we die and go back to god, then you can use your argument that it's one perfect platform, but for now, we are alive and seperate and we are by no means perfect. We are speckles.
Satan didn't defy Adam, He defied god first.
The ultimate infinite light is not within us,
Frankly I don't know. And imagining the situation isn't going to compare with real life. That side, I would imagine that if there is no hope of my wife getting better. Lets say terminal cancer, then I would spend the last of her days with her. If my wife’s situation was such that she was expected to last only a year then I would remain by her side. Which is usually the case. If she had some sort of illness that was going to take her life over a long period then I’d have to weigh the situation. I would never feel comfortable with two women as my wives so I’d either divorce my wife or I would not. If I didn’t then I would remain faithful. If I didn’t think I could remain faithful then I would reconsider divorcing her.Originally posted by Flores
Let me ask you about another scenario. Let's say for example that you were married to me and I ended up getting really sick and confined to bed, and you were only 25 years old. Let's say that I told you that I want you to remarry and have children, but I don't want you to divorce me in my condition. Let's say I ask you to do that and go on with your life, what would you do? What i would do is weigh my options really good. First I would consider if I'm a person who is vulnerable to cheat on my wife because sex happens to be important to me. Divorcing my ill wife wouldn't even cross my mind, and if I as a young MAN biologically need a female companion, then I'll remarry if my first wife is letting me do it. I'll try to be just to both and do my best and to god is my final judgement.
I see your point but this has avoided my question. Which is: Is it OK for a female to take more than one husband? Lets set up the scenario.Originally posted by Flores
I don't care what other females on this board will say, but sex to a female is a very low priority. We care more for love and companionship. Sex to us is a gift that we give males to show them how much we love them. Satisfying our orgasms is least on our minds. Because of that, a women wouldn't not biologically fit in a relationship with more than one man, because the sexual demand would be very high and it can not be satisfied. For me to sleep with four men is rape or hell. I simply can't do it, but a man can easily sleep with four women. In addition, the women body is a reciever, while a man body is an ejaculator. If you ever work in farming, you'll know that the land can only recieve one type of seed for a good harvest. We don't throw on a land cron seed, tomatoe seed, cucumber see, all in the same time and hope that one will harvest properly. Animals are similar. A male animal won't touch a female once she is pregnant from another animal. Also consider that females get pregnant with sex, meaning that if I was married to four men that I would spend the majority of my life pregnant and unable to have sex. I don't know about others, but when I'm pregnant, I don't like having sex at all. This is unfair, because four men will be expected to forget sex for the most part of their life. Do I make sense.
Many animals have no idea if the female is pregnant or not pregnant and will mate with any available female. Some females store male sperm for later use. Some male sperm have evolved to clot (presumable in the hopes of blocking rival males sperm). It really just depends on the animal.Originally posted by Flores
A male animal won't touch a female once she is pregnant from another animal.
Yes but this is your decision. Others may feel differently and should be free to choose what they would like to do with whom and how many they would like to do it with – so long as it doesn’t harm another. Ie: A woman with more than one man or A man with a man or A woman with a woman. By making it so that they can not make their own choice in the matter then one is really “playing god”. They should make their decision and be judged for it by god. It certainly doesn’t seem right that the decision is made for them (by an ancient book) – how is god then to “test” them if they can not give the answer because society has banned it? And how many times have I heard that god “Likes to Test people” (why that’s how come a person is born missing an arm of course or this or that). For this reason (if I were religious) I would look upon any religious text with a high degree of suspicion – they’re really oxymoronic if you think about it religiously (that is THEY the book make the decision not the individual). However, they make perfect sense politely – that is as a powerful form of Social Control. Which is really what its all about.Originally posted by Flores
Also consider that females get pregnant with sex, meaning that if I was married to four men that I would spend the majority of my life pregnant and unable to have sex. I don't know about others, but when I'm pregnant, I don't like having sex at all. This is unfair, because four men will be expected to forget sex for the most part of their life. Do I make sense.
Originally posted by Michael
Yes but this is your decision. Others may feel differently and should be free to choose what they would like to do with whom and how many they would like to do it with – so long as it doesn’t harm another. Ie: A woman with more than one man or A man with a man or A woman with a woman. By making it so that they can not make their own choice in the matter then one is really “playing god”. They should make their decision and be judged for it by god. It certainly doesn’t seem right that the decision is made for them (by an ancient book) – how is god then to “test” them if they can not give the answer because society has banned it?